Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-01-2012, 06:24 AM

I was looking at it differently. Since the author of Acts didn't mention any elements of the world and actions of a gospel Jesus, it would appear that he didn't know the gospel stories at all, despite the alleged link to Luke.
And if Acts was also written before the epistles, then apparently the author believed his Christ system didn't need a written account of the Christ. So what then did a story about Peter and Paul serve?

Let's also not forget that even the original Nicene Creed made no mention even of the virgin birth or the resurrection ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In any case, in the scenario that Acts came first, it implies that the sect wanted to introduce two men as co-equal leaders in a biography, namely "Peter" and "Paul" without even telling a story about their Christ figure at all at that point.
What would have been the purpose in doing that?!....

The book is called "Acts of the Apostles" not the Acts of Jesus. If Jesus was just a story then there would be NO history of any real apostles and no historical records of their families, friends, acquaintances and activities.

This is PRECISELY what have been observed. Acts of the Apostles was most likely written to "historicize" the myth characters of the Jesus story.

It is extremely important to understand that in the earliest gMark that the disciples were NOT ever commissioned to preach the Gospel.

Remember it was the Resurrected Jesus, the already DEAD Jesus, that was supposed to MEET the disciples in Galilee and have them commissioned.

The Great Commission in Galilee did NOT ever happen in the earliest gMark up to the time it was composed.

Mark 14:28 -

Quote:

But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

It is just LAUGHABLE that a man will set up a meeting with his disciples in GALILEE after he was DEAD.

The Great Commission in GALILEE with the ALREADY dead Jesus happened in gMatthew and INTERPOLATED gMark.

But, later the story was changed in gLuke and the Great Commission with the Resurrected DEAD happened in Jerusalem, NOT Galilee.

It would be noticed that the author of Acts, like gLuke, placed the post-resurrection visit in Jerusalem when in the earliest gospel, gMark, the post-resurrection meeting was to be in GALILEE.

Acts of the Apostles is supposed to be the Documented evidence that the ALREADY DEAD Jesus did visit the disciples and had them Commissioned and that they did receive the PROMISE of the Holy GHOST from the ALREADY DEAD Jesus.

Without Acts of the Apostles there would be NOTHING but the Jesus story that ended with the resurrection visit and ascension.

Acts of the Apostles is an INVENTION to historicise the Gospels and then the Pauline writings were later invented to historicize Acts of the Apostles.

aa5874 · 01-01-2012, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I was looking at it differently. Since the author of Acts didn't mention any elements of the world and actions of a gospel Jesus, it would appear that he didn't know the gospel stories at all, despite the alleged link to Luke.
And if Acts was also written before the epistles, then apparently the author believed his Christ system didn't need a written account of the Christ. So what then did a story about Peter and Paul serve?....

You will have to ANSWER your own questions because I certainly do NOT hold your view.

My theory is that gMark story was really the impetus for the start of the Jesus Christ cult where it was believed that the Jewish Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem made desolate because the Jews REJECTED and crucified Jesus who fed, and healed and cast out demons from the hungry, poor and evil Jews.

gMark is not a Salvation story it is an explanation for the Fall of the Jewish and it would appear people of antiquity BELIEVED the gMark's story and that Jesus was COMING back SOON.

The Jesus story in gMark was changed AFTER it was realized that the so-called prophecies in gMark were not coming to pass. "This Generation" had ALREADY passed.

The so-called FAILED Prophecies in gMARK of the Second Coming is a very important clue as to when gMark may have been written. gMark was most likely written within a "GENERATION" of the timeline for gMark's Jesus story or within a "GENERATION" of the time of Pilate, and more likely close to the END of the "GENERATION"

Mr 13:30 -

Quote:

Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

We can see that the author of gJohn REMOVED every single prediction uttered by the Synoptic Jesus about the SECOND COMING as found in the Synoptics.

There are NO FAILED Second Coming Prophecies in "this generation" in gJohn.

In gJohn, remarkably, Jesus did NOT ever state he would return in "this generation".

The author of gJohn wrote about the Comforter instead and in Acts of the Apostles, the Comforter, the Holy Ghost was received on the day of Pentecost.

Duvduv · 01-01-2012, 07:09 AM

But then don't you have to account for the fact that neither Acts nor epistles mentions anything from the Mark story which you would argue came after Mark but before the other epistles??

aa5874 · 01-01-2012, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But then don't you have to account for the fact that neither Acts nor epistles mentions anything from the Mark story which you would argue came after Mark but before the other epistles??

Again the book is called ACTS of the APOSTLES and it is about the post-ascension ACTIVITIES of the Apostles AFTER the ascension and AFTER they received the Holy Ghost. Acts was written AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY KNOWN but there was NOTHING at all documented of the supposed Apostles.

Virtually all the books of the Canon, except the Gospels, have very little about the life of Jesus SIMPLE because they were written AFTER the Jesus story were ALREADY KNOWN and CIRCULATED.

Duvduv · 01-01-2012, 07:35 AM

Except that it is extremely hard to believe that the entire book wouldn't have any mention whatsoever of any aphorisms or events of their Savior or any mention of the stories of apostles when they were with their Savior. Something. It just doesn't make sense that stories of apostles wouldn't say a thing.
In fact, your explanation is exactly the same as those who justify the lack of mention of the life and words of Jesus in the epistles, I.e. because the recipients already knew all about it --- which of course we know makes no sense.

Maklelan · 01-01-2012, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, read gLuke and gMatthew.

Oh, I've read them many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Both authors claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

I don't make stuff up.

i've already shown several times over that you absolutely do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Have a look at Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35.

Matthew 1:18-25 -

Quote:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...... his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost...........behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph........that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS...

I have SOURCES of antiquity that show the Father of Jesus was a Ghost.

I have written statements that were PUBLICLY circulated in antiquity.

You have nothing but what you imagine. Please show me the source that gLuke used for his genealogy of the Son of the Ghost?

Your comments are just getting more and more bizarre. What on earth does the virgin birth question have to do with the differences in the narratives?

aa5874 · 01-01-2012, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Except that it is extremely hard to believe that the entire book wouldn't have any mention whatsoever of any aphorisms or events of their Savior or any mention of the stories of apostles when they were with their Savior. Something. It just doesn't make sense that stories of apostles wouldn't say a thing.
In fact, your explanation is exactly the same as those who justify the lack of mention of the life and words of Jesus in the epistles, I.e. because the recipients already knew all about it --- which of course we know makes no sense.

The very first chapter of Acts does mention a post-resurrection meeting of Jesus and the disciples where he ASCENDED in a cloud.

ACTS of the APOSTLES is about the ACTS of the APOSTLES AFTER Jesus LEFT earth in a cloud.

Now, look at Acts 2, it is claimed Peter did give PREACH about Jesus.

Quote:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29 Men and brethren, let me F4 freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You seem not to understand that the author of Acts gives the impression that it was really known that Jesus did carry out miracles, was crucified and was raised from the dead.

Duvduv · 01-01-2012, 09:04 AM

But these statements are very generic.Not a messiah but a resurrected holy miracle man who the epistles don't discuss. No salvation involved here and nothing related to the Mark storyline.
In any case the epistles strangely following Acts knew nothing of Nazareth.

aa5874 · 01-01-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But these statements are very generic.Not a messiah but a resurrected holy miracle man who the epistles don't discuss. No salvation involved here and nothing related to the Mark storyline.
In any case the epistles strangely following Acts knew nothing of Nazareth.

The author of Acts referred to his Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth and his list of the twelve Apostles is virtually the same as gMark.

Again, Acts of the Apostles is about the ACTIVITIES of the Apostles AFTER Jesus LEFT in a cloud to heaven.

Acts of the Apostles will tell us about the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and TALKING in Tongues on the day of Pentecost and that 2000 persons were converted on the very day after Peter Preached the Gospel with the Holy Ghost POWER.

Acts of the Apostles is about the POWER of the HOLY GHOST and the START of the Jesus cult of Christians,

Duvduv · 01-01-2012, 09:52 AM

BUT we can see that this has nothing to do with the ideas of the epistles that came afterwards from the same group that wrote Acts first. And certainly the epistles record nothing of the stories of Mark and the Son of Man that would have preceded Mark.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-01-2012, 07:09 AM	#113
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	But then don't you have to account for the fact that neither Acts nor epistles mentions anything from the Mark story which you would argue came after Mark but before the other epistles??

01-01-2012, 07:35 AM	#115
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Except that it is extremely hard to believe that the entire book wouldn't have any mention whatsoever of any aphorisms or events of their Savior or any mention of the stories of apostles when they were with their Savior. Something. It just doesn't make sense that stories of apostles wouldn't say a thing. In fact, your explanation is exactly the same as those who justify the lack of mention of the life and words of Jesus in the epistles, I.e. because the recipients already knew all about it --- which of course we know makes no sense.

01-01-2012, 09:04 AM	#118
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	But these statements are very generic.Not a messiah but a resurrected holy miracle man who the epistles don't discuss. No salvation involved here and nothing related to the Mark storyline. In any case the epistles strangely following Acts knew nothing of Nazareth.

01-01-2012, 09:52 AM	#120
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	BUT we can see that this has nothing to do with the ideas of the epistles that came afterwards from the same group that wrote Acts first. And certainly the epistles record nothing of the stories of Mark and the Son of Man that would have preceded Mark.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.